If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Sequestration or not, the Defense department is preparing for a draw down to only outspending the next five countries combined   (politico.com) divider line 120
    More: Interesting, Department of Defense, James Amos, Chuck Hagel, carbon sequestration, V-22 Osprey, F-35, Leon Panetta, Senate Armed Services Committee  
•       •       •

1682 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Dec 2012 at 3:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-27 12:02:44 PM
Unacceptable. If we don't outspend everyone else in the world combined, how will we keep their hearts and minds?
 
2012-12-27 12:20:41 PM
We'll lose so much respect that next time we invade and occupy a country they won't be greeting us as liberators. There will be no flowers and candy.
 
2012-12-27 01:04:42 PM
Get rid of bases that only made sense during the Cold War. I'm primarily looking at you, West Germany and Okinawa. That alone will save money. We don't need 11 carrier groups. We can do just fine with 6 and still have 3x the number of carriers in the world.
 
2012-12-27 01:20:23 PM

shanrick: We'll lose so much respect that next time we invade and occupy a country they won't be greeting us as liberators. There will be no flowers and candy.


And the wars might last more than six weeks, and maybe not even pay for themselves!
 
2012-12-27 01:31:20 PM
Good
 
2012-12-27 01:43:43 PM

unlikely: Unacceptable. If we don't outspend everyone else in the world combined, how will we keep their hearts and minds?


Much of that money goes into research that won't translate into battlefield weapons systems for 20+ years, not into actual weapons systems procurement and maintenance.  The US is the military research powerhouse of the world. Why do you think China and Russia copy all their stuff from us?
 
2012-12-27 01:44:16 PM
"I'm not for any more defense cuts, and I'm also not for raising taxes," the Texas Republican said at a luncheon hosted by POLITICO Pro. "I suspect I'm not going to get my way."

These cuts are long overdue

Good article although I'm now left wondering what Lindsey Graham imagines "an end to the "Iranian nuclear threat" means precisely.
 
2012-12-27 01:46:01 PM

quatchi: Good article although I'm now left wondering what Lindsey Graham imagines "an end to the "Iranian nuclear threat" means precisely.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-27 03:07:41 PM

unlikely: Unacceptable. If we don't outspend everyone else in the world combined, how will we keep their hearts and minds?


PC LOAD LETTER: Get rid of bases that only made sense during the Cold War. I'm primarily looking at you, West Germany and Okinawa. That alone will save money. We don't need 11 carrier groups. We can do just fine with 6 and still have 3x the number of carriers in the world.


BUT BEARS IN THE WOODS
 
2012-12-27 03:08:29 PM
Good. Now we'll see if Congress forces them to spend that money anyway, on the most useless shiat imaginable.

(Hint: The answer is yes.)
 
2012-12-27 03:08:45 PM
bobcesca.com
 
2012-12-27 03:08:55 PM

quatchi: "I'm not for any more defense cuts, and I'm also not for raising taxes," the Texas Republican said at a luncheon hosted by POLITICO Pro. "I suspect I'm not going to get my way."

These cuts are long overdue

Good article although I'm now left wondering what Lindsey Graham imagines "an end to the "Iranian nuclear threat" means precisely.


So does Lindsey Graham
 
2012-12-27 03:11:12 PM
So you mean a department that produces a report on shiat from their budget that they freely admit can be cut...is actually going to have to cut their budget? BLASPHEMY, WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA LIBS? I SUPPOSE THAT MONEY IS BETTER SPENT ON SOME WELFARE QUEEN INSTEAD OF A NUCLEAR TANK, YOU DUMBORATS
 
2012-12-27 03:11:49 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Good. Now we'll see if Congress forces them to spend that money anyway, on the most useless shiat imaginable.


Congress is buying more Salmon Cannons?
www2.b3ta.com
 
2012-12-27 03:19:08 PM

Epoch_Zero: A Dark Evil Omen: Good. Now we'll see if Congress forces them to spend that money anyway, on the most useless shiat imaginable.

Congress is buying more Salmon Cannons?
[www2.b3ta.com image 500x534]


In what way is that useless? That is AWESOME.

I'll bet you could shoot all sorts of fish, not just salmon!
 
2012-12-27 03:21:31 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Get rid of bases that only made sense during the Cold War. I'm primarily looking at you, West Germany and Okinawa. That alone will save money. We don't need 11 carrier groups. We can do just fine with 6 and still have 3x the number of carriers in the world.


*sigh*

well, I guess I haven't had -this- argument in a couple of months....

/yes, those bases have significant contemporary purpose
//the naval strength of other nations bears no relevance whatsoever to US naval strength, particularly when discussing carrier groups
 
2012-12-27 03:21:58 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Epoch_Zero: A Dark Evil Omen: Good. Now we'll see if Congress forces them to spend that money anyway, on the most useless shiat imaginable.

Congress is buying more Salmon Cannons?
[www2.b3ta.com image 500x534]

In what way is that useless? That is AWESOME.

I'll bet you could shoot all sorts of fish, not just salmon!


God help us if they develop the technology to fire sharks.
 
2012-12-27 03:22:35 PM
Time to take away the unnecessary entitlements given to government contractors through non-competitive funding requests.
 
2012-12-27 03:22:48 PM

Shakin_Haitian: A Dark Evil Omen: Epoch_Zero: A Dark Evil Omen: Good. Now we'll see if Congress forces them to spend that money anyway, on the most useless shiat imaginable.

Congress is buying more Salmon Cannons?
[www2.b3ta.com image 500x534]

In what way is that useless? That is AWESOME.

I'll bet you could shoot all sorts of fish, not just salmon!

God help us if they develop the technology to fire sharks.


THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES MY RIGHT TO A SHARK-LAUNCHER.
 
Boe
2012-12-27 03:23:07 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Get rid of bases that only made sense during the Cold War. I'm primarily looking at you, West Germany and Okinawa. That alone will save money. We don't need 11 carrier groups. We can do just fine with 6 and still have 3x the number of carriers in the world.


There's already been a significant draw down in Germany, including the closure of several Army posts this year with more to come, I believe. It still costs money to close those bases, to include paying out the wazoo for laying off local nationals working on those bases.
 
2012-12-27 03:23:48 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Shakin_Haitian: A Dark Evil Omen: Epoch_Zero: A Dark Evil Omen: Good. Now we'll see if Congress forces them to spend that money anyway, on the most useless shiat imaginable.

Congress is buying more Salmon Cannons?
[www2.b3ta.com image 500x534]

In what way is that useless? That is AWESOME.

I'll bet you could shoot all sorts of fish, not just salmon!

God help us if they develop the technology to fire sharks.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES MY RIGHT TO A SHARK-LAUNCHER.


For duck hunting.
 
2012-12-27 03:25:52 PM

BronyMedic: unlikely: Unacceptable. If we don't outspend everyone else in the world combined, how will we keep their hearts and minds?

Much of that money goes into research that won't translate into battlefield weapons systems for 20+ years, not into actual weapons systems procurement and maintenance.  The US is the military research powerhouse of the world. Why do you think China and Russia copy all their stuff from us?


Billions wasted on over-budget technology that takes years to developed seldom creating results given to companies through non-competitive contracts is not capitalism......that is farking socialism.
 
2012-12-27 03:28:39 PM

BronyMedic: Much of that money goes into research that won't translate into battlefield weapons systems for 20+ years, not into actual weapons systems procurement and maintenance. The US is the military research powerhouse of the world. Why do you think China and Russia copy all their stuff from us?


Seems to me that most of the aircraft produced in the last few decades are so expensive and fragile, our own military can't figure how to make them effective. Unmanned aircraft seem to function well but the cost is astronomical.
 
2012-12-27 03:29:35 PM

Citrate1007: BronyMedic: unlikely: Unacceptable. If we don't outspend everyone else in the world combined, how will we keep their hearts and minds?

Much of that money goes into research that won't translate into battlefield weapons systems for 20+ years, not into actual weapons systems procurement and maintenance.  The US is the military research powerhouse of the world. Why do you think China and Russia copy all their stuff from us?

Billions wasted on over-budget technology that takes years to developed seldom creating results given to companies through non-competitive contracts is not capitalism......that is farking socialism.


It's fascism. It doesn't resemble socialism at all.
 
2012-12-27 03:31:51 PM
As a former Soldier, I'm okay with this.
 
2012-12-27 03:32:35 PM
American-made weapons are just too expensive. JUST THINK OF ALL THAT LABOR UNION WASTE!

I'm sure we could get all of our tanks and planes and carriers built at less than half the price in China.
 
2012-12-27 03:33:13 PM

Shakin_Haitian: A Dark Evil Omen: Epoch_Zero: A Dark Evil Omen: Good. Now we'll see if Congress forces them to spend that money anyway, on the most useless shiat imaginable.

Congress is buying more Salmon Cannons?
[www2.b3ta.com image 500x534]

In what way is that useless? That is AWESOME.

I'll bet you could shoot all sorts of fish, not just salmon!

God help us if they develop the technology to fire sharks.


Will the sharks be laser-guided?

/now i see the endgame for what it is.
 
2012-12-27 03:34:06 PM

Shakin_Haitian: A Dark Evil Omen: Epoch_Zero: A Dark Evil Omen: Good. Now we'll see if Congress forces them to spend that money anyway, on the most useless shiat imaginable.

Congress is buying more Salmon Cannons?
[www2.b3ta.com image 500x534]

In what way is that useless? That is AWESOME.

I'll bet you could shoot all sorts of fish, not just salmon!

God help us if they develop the technology to fire sharks.


Is there a direct-fire version of the shark cannon? Because a laser sight would be really good for that.
 
2012-12-27 03:37:02 PM
Good. We spend too much on the DoD anyway.

I love this so much: Republicans ensuring a tax increase AND defense cuts.
 
2012-12-27 03:37:36 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Epoch_Zero: A Dark Evil Omen: Good. Now we'll see if Congress forces them to spend that money anyway, on the most useless shiat imaginable.

Congress is buying more Salmon Cannons?
[www2.b3ta.com image 500x534]

In what way is that useless? That is AWESOME.

I'll bet you could shoot all sorts of fish, not just salmon!


I'm going to name my penis "Salmon Cannon."
 
2012-12-27 03:40:56 PM

ghare: I love this so much: Republicans ensuring a tax increase AND defense cuts.


lol THIS

They trapped themselves in a corner. Republicans are morons.
 
2012-12-27 03:42:02 PM

The Bestest: PC LOAD LETTER: Get rid of bases that only made sense during the Cold War. I'm primarily looking at you, West Germany and Okinawa. That alone will save money. We don't need 11 carrier groups. We can do just fine with 6 and still have 3x the number of carriers in the world.

*sigh*

well, I guess I haven't had -this- argument in a couple of months....

/yes, those bases have significant contemporary purpose
//the naval strength of other nations bears no relevance whatsoever to US naval strength, particularly when discussing carrier groups


And what would those purposes be? Seems like we would only need them to stage regional operations from and if we got rid of them we would be less capable and therefor less likely to get ourselves involved in crap we have no business being involved in.

I'm for scrapping these and other bases, basically cutting our military by 2/3 and then doubling down on our funding and involvement with the UN. Seems to me that if the there are international incidents that need some sort of altruistic help by outside forces, the UN is the perfect vehicle for that. If you can't get the UN to vote in favor of getting involved, then we probably shouldn't be sticking our noses in.

But seriously, I know nothing of these types of things and if there is some sort of legitimate reason we need all these basis and military, I'd love to hear it.
 
2012-12-27 03:42:50 PM

The Bestest: PC LOAD LETTER: Get rid of bases that only made sense during the Cold War. I'm primarily looking at you, West Germany and Okinawa. That alone will save money. We don't need 11 carrier groups. We can do just fine with 6 and still have 3x the number of carriers in the world.

*sigh*

well, I guess I haven't had -this- argument in a couple of months....

/yes, those bases have significant contemporary purpose
//the naval strength of other nations bears no relevance whatsoever to US naval strength, particularly when discussing carrier groups


If we want to be the world's policeman and stick our dicks in hornets nests around the world, then those bases and carrier groups won't pay for themselves, that's for sure. The notion that the US will be weaker if we stop being the world's policeman is silly. We don't need to revert to pre-WW2 level of militarism. We don't need to be on the level we are at now either. The current obsession with military strength in America when we have more power then the rest of the world combined and then multiplied several times over is stupid. We have allies. They can take over. If they fail? Shrug. I don't really care at that point.
 
2012-12-27 03:44:30 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: The Bestest: PC LOAD LETTER: Get rid of bases that only made sense during the Cold War. I'm primarily looking at you, West Germany and Okinawa. That alone will save money. We don't need 11 carrier groups. We can do just fine with 6 and still have 3x the number of carriers in the world.

*sigh*

well, I guess I haven't had -this- argument in a couple of months....

/yes, those bases have significant contemporary purpose
//the naval strength of other nations bears no relevance whatsoever to US naval strength, particularly when discussing carrier groups

If we want to be the world's policeman and stick our dicks in hornets nests around the world, then those bases and carrier groups won't pay for themselves, that's for sure. The notion that the US will be weaker if we stop being the world's policeman is silly. We don't need to revert to pre-WW2 level of militarism. We don't need to be on the level we are at now either. The current obsession with military strength in America when we have more power then the rest of the world combined and then multiplied several times over is stupid. We have allies. They can take over. If they fail? Shrug. I don't really care at that point.


One could even propose modifying the NATO treaty and transferring control (and upkeep costs) of those bases and carrier groups to NATO as a whole. If they're important enough for global security then costs can be shared.
 
2012-12-27 03:44:38 PM

had98c: As a former Soldier, I'm okay with this.


As a current Soldier whose civilian job includes research contracts with the DoD, I'm also ok with this.
 
2012-12-27 03:45:06 PM
Good.

We spend about half the entire budget on the military. Its ridiculous. And unsustainable.


Even during the height of the Cold War (imminent nuclear war with Russia) we didn't waste this much money on the military. But we do now.

We should really chop the military budget down to about 10% of its current size. And if we ever need to, we can always ramp it up again, just like we did at the beginning of WW I. And WW II. Its not like if we reduce it we can never ever ever ever increase it again.
 
2012-12-27 03:45:15 PM
"We appear to be at the beginning of a long downward trend," Thompson said. "You don't need sequestration in order for that trend to unfold, but you will definitely need some sort of new threat in order for it to stop."

What?! You mean we need an actual enemy or something?!

/Towards the end of the cold war science fiction books about alien invasions got really popular in the Pentagon. One favorite was Footfall.
 
2012-12-27 03:45:37 PM

rtaylor92: The Bestest: PC LOAD LETTER: Get rid of bases that only made sense during the Cold War. I'm primarily looking at you, West Germany and Okinawa. That alone will save money. We don't need 11 carrier groups. We can do just fine with 6 and still have 3x the number of carriers in the world.

*sigh*

well, I guess I haven't had -this- argument in a couple of months....

/yes, those bases have significant contemporary purpose
//the naval strength of other nations bears no relevance whatsoever to US naval strength, particularly when discussing carrier groups

And what would those purposes be? Seems like we would only need them to stage regional operations from and if we got rid of them we would be less capable and therefor less likely to get ourselves involved in crap we have no business being involved in.

I'm for scrapping these and other bases, basically cutting our military by 2/3 and then doubling down on our funding and involvement with the UN. Seems to me that if the there are international incidents that need some sort of altruistic help by outside forces, the UN is the perfect vehicle for that. If you can't get the UN to vote in favor of getting involved, then we probably shouldn't be sticking our noses in.

But seriously, I know nothing of these types of things and if there is some sort of legitimate reason we need all these basis and military, I'd love to hear it.


SOSHULISM!

Seriously, part of the right-wing personality disorder is feeling that the only viable method of changing behavior is through punishment or use of force. Any other means of changing behavior, even if proven more effective, is unacceptable. Violence and the threat of violence is the only solution.
 
2012-12-27 03:52:15 PM
NO!!!!! Now all Great Britain, China, France, Russia and Japan need do is JOIN FORCES and the United States is DOOOOOOOOMED!!!

Thanks OBAMA!
 
2012-12-27 03:52:16 PM

quatchi:
Good article although I'm now left wondering what Lindsey Graham imagines "an end to the "Iranian nuclear threat" means precisely.


I'm guessing a nuclear end to the Iranian "threat".
 
2012-12-27 03:52:46 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Epoch_Zero: A Dark Evil Omen: Good. Now we'll see if Congress forces them to spend that money anyway, on the most useless shiat imaginable.

Congress is buying more Salmon Cannons?
[www2.b3ta.com image 500x534]

In what way is that useless? That is AWESOME.

I'll bet you could shoot all sorts of fish, not just salmon!


fc02.deviantart.net

SQUID LAUNCHER! OH YEAH!
 
2012-12-27 03:52:49 PM

NateGrey: [bobcesca.com image 500x350]


bobcesca.com

Bears repeating.

I've been saying this for awhile. All the GOP does is talk about how only the private sector creates jobs. So now sequestration is about to kick in and now the GOP is freaking out saying "NO NO NO, THE GOVERNMENT CREATES ALL THESE JOBS!"
 
2012-12-27 03:55:41 PM

Goodfella: NateGrey: [bobcesca.com image 500x350]

[bobcesca.com image 500x350]

Bears repeating.

I've been saying this for awhile. All the GOP does is talk about how only the private sector creates jobs. So now sequestration is about to kick in and now the GOP is freaking out saying "NO NO NO, THE GOVERNMENT CREATES ALL THESE JOBS!"


I am saving this picture with the knowledge that I can re-purpose this at least once a week.
 
2012-12-27 04:07:42 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Shakin_Haitian: A Dark Evil Omen: Epoch_Zero: A Dark Evil Omen: Good. Now we'll see if Congress forces them to spend that money anyway, on the most useless shiat imaginable.

Congress is buying more Salmon Cannons?
[www2.b3ta.com image 500x534]

In what way is that useless? That is AWESOME.

I'll bet you could shoot all sorts of fish, not just salmon!

God help us if they develop the technology to fire sharks.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES MY RIGHT TO A SHARK-LAUNCHER.


But you have no justification for one that holds more than ten sharks.
 
2012-12-27 04:09:27 PM

Goodfella: Even during the height of the Cold War (imminent nuclear war with Russia) we didn't waste this much money on the military. But we do now.


But terrorism and #occupy and Kim Dotcom and Wikileaks and Iran and bittorrent!
 
2012-12-27 04:10:46 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Get rid of bases that only made sense during the Cold War. I'm primarily looking at you, West Germany and Okinawa. That alone will save money. We don't need 11 carrier groups. We can do just fine with 6 and still have 3x the number of carriers in the world.


Okinawa is need to contain the Chinese aggression in the region. We don't want those Chinks to think they can get uppity with our yellow friends the Japs.
 
2012-12-27 04:12:45 PM

The number 7 and the letter Q!: A Dark Evil Omen: Shakin_Haitian: A Dark Evil Omen: Epoch_Zero: A Dark Evil Omen: Good. Now we'll see if Congress forces them to spend that money anyway, on the most useless shiat imaginable.

Congress is buying more Salmon Cannons?
[www2.b3ta.com image 500x534]

In what way is that useless? That is AWESOME.

I'll bet you could shoot all sorts of fish, not just salmon!

God help us if they develop the technology to fire sharks.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES MY RIGHT TO A SHARK-LAUNCHER.

But you have no justification for one that holds more than ten sharks.


That's alright, I wouldn't want to keep that much chum around my apartment anyway.
 
2012-12-27 04:18:40 PM
Can't say I have much hope for this thread given a couple of posts I see, but I'll try...

Firstly, "size" of the US military:
Trap #1 so many people fall into is comparing relative strength of the US military to that of the rest of the world. Irrelevant. Let's say your neighbor has a dinky little front yard while you have a sprawling acreage. Is anyone going to say "why do you need a lawn tractor when all he has is a manual mower?"? Now, to get into what actually constitutes that allegorical lawn, let's discuss..

"Role" of the US military:
This is where I feel most people are uninformed regarding the topic. It's not about being "world police" or whatnot, but it -is- a bit about imperialism, just maybe not in the classical sense. The US is a corporatist nation for all the strengths and failings that entails, and -in addition to- direct national security, the role of the military serves and protects that system and its trappings. It's ability to project global force (and that specific ability is why we have bases all over the place and so many carrier groups) is what strengthens and maintains the overall system on the world stage. "War for oil" is a truth/example/microcosm of this.

Lastly, the "cost:
This is more to the topic on hand. Yes, there are immediate cuts that can be made to the overall military budget without adversely affecting overall "strength", but really that's all gloss, doesn't amount to all that much (relatively) dollar-wise and doesn't address the core of the issue. We could probably run the same military we have now, personnel and equipment, for half or even a third of the budget if we overhauled just one thing: procurement. This will never ever happen so long as precedent continues to be the basis for budgeting and Congress keeps having direct say in where, how and from whom parts and equipment are manufactured and purchased.


I know I'm probably glossing over a lot of questions and such, but I'll get to them as the thread drags on, maybe.
 
2012-12-27 04:19:54 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Get rid of bases that only made sense during the Cold War. I'm primarily looking at you, West Germany and Okinawa. That alone will save money. We don't need 11 carrier groups. We can do just fine with 6 and still have 3x the number of carriers in the world.


Also we could get rid of the forts built for the Indian wars while we're at it.
 
2012-12-27 04:22:26 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: The Bestest: PC LOAD LETTER: Get rid of bases that only made sense during the Cold War. I'm primarily looking at you, West Germany and Okinawa. That alone will save money. We don't need 11 carrier groups. We can do just fine with 6 and still have 3x the number of carriers in the world.

*sigh*

well, I guess I haven't had -this- argument in a couple of months....

/yes, those bases have significant contemporary purpose
//the naval strength of other nations bears no relevance whatsoever to US naval strength, particularly when discussing carrier groups

If we want to be the world's policeman and stick our dicks in hornets nests around the world, then those bases and carrier groups won't pay for themselves, that's for sure. The notion that the US will be weaker if we stop being the world's policeman is silly. We don't need to revert to pre-WW2 level of militarism. We don't need to be on the level we are at now either. The current obsession with military strength in America when we have more power then the rest of the world combined and then multiplied several times over is stupid. We have allies. They can take over. If they fail? Shrug. I don't really care at that point.


I'd be fine with us being the world policeman provided the countries we were providing the service to paid us for it. We act as the world policeman for the same reason the Romans built roads but I'm not sure it's as profitable for us as it should be.

I think the Japanese should be allowed to have a military again, regardless.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report